• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is political debate dead?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,149
14,361
136
So you are arguing for a "free-market" based approach. How Republican of you :p. That worked so well for financial institutions :rolleyes:
Need to duh-vert, huh? You're the one talking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously.

There are so many women choosing to have children of wedlock now that I am sure there are a bunch of reason. All bad.
As if you're qualified to judge, given your obvious hatred of women.

People are idiots. Have you learned nothing from the recent financial crisis?
More duh-version. People are idiots all too often, particularly any seeking to create the reproduction police.

Some people are also quite shrewd in an utterly selfish way, more than willing to take advantage of others. Have you learned nothing from the recent financial crisis?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
As if you're qualified to judge, given your obvious hatred of women.
Expecting independent women to be responsible for themselves and their choices is not hating them.

More duh-version. People are idiots all too often, particularly any seeking to create the reproduction police.

Some people are also quite shrewd in an utterly selfish way, more than willing to take advantage of others. Have you learned nothing from the recent financial crisis?
Expecting people to be responsible for themselves and their choices is not "taking advantage of them" :rolleyes:
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,149
14,361
136
Expecting independent women to be responsible for themselves and their choices is not hating them.
Yet you would deny them the ability to make those choices, as the state of Mississippi is attempting. You'd go further, forcing them to have abortions whether they want to or not. You assert that men have the right to decide for them, legislatures & law enforcement both being dominated by men.

Expecting people to be responsible for themselves and their choices is not "taking advantage of them" :rolleyes:
Expecting average people to understand the machinations of financial sharpies who've plied their craft for decades is entirely dishonest, violating the rules of common decency. Have you no shame?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Yet you would deny them the ability to make those choices, as the state of Mississippi is attempting. You'd go further, forcing them to have abortions whether they want to or not. You assert that men have the right to decide for them, legislatures & law enforcement both being dominated by men.
Reality decides for them. Kids need food, clothes, health care, shelter. If the woman cannot provide for her kids then you will FORCE men to provide for her choice.

If you have a solution that does not FORCE men to provide for women's choices present it.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Reality decides for them. Kids need food, clothes, health care, shelter. If the woman cannot provide for her kids then you will FORCE men to provide for her choice.

If you have a solution that does not FORCE men to provide for women's choices present it.
Solution: force you to undergo a sex-change and implant a developing egg in your stomach and let men decide your your health issues.:D:
 

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,124
72
91
Reality decides for them. Kids need food, clothes, health care, shelter. If the woman cannot provide for her kids then you will FORCE men to provide for her choice.

If you have a solution that does not FORCE men to provide for women's choices present it.
I can't follow your line of thinking:

- an unwed mother who wants to have an abortion by her own choice = No, it's not right
- an unwed mother who doesn't want to have an abortion = govt should force her to have one

Why not educate young, unwed mothers on their choices and encourage them to make the prudent choice for their situation? Remove any stigma or social pressure to have or not have an abortion - if they don't feel they're ready or financially able to raise a child, let them have an abortion. Having the government "force" them to have one is incredibly scary.

And I still believe in the utter hopelessness of trying to legislate "morality". When the divorce rate is the same with churchgoers and not, believing the government can be more effective is utterly naive. Get your religious houses in order and come from a position of moral strength, not hypocrisy. The attitude of 'do as I say, not as I do' among churchgoers has destroyed any moral authority they once might have had.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Why not educate young, unwed mothers on their choices and encourage them to make the prudent choice for their situation? Remove any stigma or social pressure to have or not have an abortion - if they don't feel they're ready or financially able to raise a child, let them have an abortion.
Maybe we should try that with wall street. We could educate them on appropriate investments, risk managements, and leverage ratios. But let them make whatever choice they felt was personally best for their bank :rolleyes:

And it would fail because a minimum of 20% of births are to women who cannot afford to have a child but purposefully got pregnant anyway.

Having the government "force" them to have one is incredibly scary.
But having the government "force" hardworking prudent American's to support their choice is not scary?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Solution: force you to undergo a sex-change and implant a developing egg in your stomach and let men decide your your health issues.:D:
So in other words you do not have one. And believe that you yourself should be a slave to women's reproductive choices.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
I actually did answer your question. Most people want more than what they need to live. That is the motivation for most.
Then how come we have both so many people on welfare, and so few willing to do hard work that illegals come into the country to take those jobs?

For alot of these people the choice is:

No work = Free housing + Free Food +Free health care + etc

or

Hard work = Housing, food, +etc


Talk about an easy choice. The end result is the same, the difference is in one case the person would have to work.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,149
14,361
136
Reality decides for them. Kids need food, clothes, health care, shelter. If the woman cannot provide for her kids then you will FORCE men to provide for her choice.

If you have a solution that does not FORCE men to provide for women's choices present it.
And you would force your own judgment upon them, removing the possibility of them making a choice you might even agree with. Obviously, in your world, freedom is for men, not for women, and men should bear no responsibility for their own progeny. Men will decide for them- whether or not they can afford a child, whether or not they should have an abortion, whether or not the father should support their own children, whether or not contraceptive coverage is a required part of health care plans. Men will decide!

And you're still talking out of both sides of your mouth when you propose we should stigmatize childbirth out of wedlock, bring back shotgun weddings, do away with no fault divorce. If that's not forcing men to take joint responsibility for joint actions, then what is?

You seem to think that men don't recognize the possibilities & responsibilities when they have sex with women, that they're somehow victims in all this. Hardly. The roles & responsibilities haven't changed much since ancient times, other than women escaping from being owned. The truth is that the liberation of women has actually reduced male responsibilities. Not so long ago men were held more strongly accountable for their action in this realm than they are today. Failure to "do the right thing" could have severe consequences, up to and including premature demise.

You also fail to recognize that welfare isn't forever, that it's usually a bridge, a temporary situation that the vast majority of recipients seek to escape, to move on, to get jobs & the better life that traditionally comes from it.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
And you would force your own judgment upon them, removing the possibility of them making a choice you might even agree with. Obviously, in your world, freedom is for men, not for women, and men should bear no responsibility for their own progeny. Men will decide for them- whether or not they can afford a child, whether or not they should have an abortion, whether or not the father should support their own children, whether or not contraceptive coverage is a required part of health care plans. Men will decide!
Well going by the poverty rate of single mother clearly women are incapable of doing so. If you want men to pay for it, then yes men should decide.

And you're still talking out of both sides of your mouth when you propose we should stigmatize childbirth out of wedlock, bring back shotgun weddings, do away with no fault divorce. If that's not forcing men to take joint responsibility for joint actions, then what is?
And all of those things would reduce the need for abortion and government programs.

I never said bring back shotgun weddings. Nowadays women are too slutty for them to work. For example:
Aside from the fact that I wasn't really sure who the father was…
http://jezebel.com/5914317/my-jewish-abortion

Kinda hard to have shotgun weddings when you do not know who the father is.

A man should only be forced to be responsible for a child if he is married to the child's mother.

You seem to think that men don't recognize the possibilities & responsibilities when they have sex with women, that they're somehow victims in all this. Hardly. The roles & responsibilities haven't changed much since ancient times, other than women escaping from being owned. The truth is that the liberation of women has actually reduced male responsibilities. Not so long ago men were held more strongly accountable for their action in this realm than they are today. Failure to "do the right thing" could have severe consequences, up to and including premature demise.
No, I think women are not forced to recognize those responsibilities. Liberals are obsessed with it. So your argument is that I am treating women like men (see bold). How horrible.

You also fail to recognize that welfare isn't forever, that it's usually a bridge, a temporary situation that the vast majority of recipients seek to escape, to move on, to get jobs & the better life that traditionally comes from it.
Someone has clearly never heard of generational poverty.

In conclusion. No man should be forced to be responsible for a woman's reproductive choice. If you have a better plan to make that happen present it.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,149
14,361
136
A man should only be forced to be responsible for a child if he is married to the child's mother.
So if he refuses to marry, he's not responsible! Brilliant!

Your notion that women are "sluttier" today is absurd, and one anecdote certainly doesn't make your case in the slightest. Where the hell do you think that the term "Jezebel" came from, anyway? the 60's?

With your headset, you'd fit right in with Pushtun tribesmen who'd stone their own daughters for sexual indiscretions, forgive the man because of the irresistible temptation of loose women.

In conclusion. No man should be forced to be responsible for a woman's reproductive choice. If you have a better plan to make that happen present it.
Absurd. He took on that responsibility when he chose to have sex in the first place, and no amount of obfuscation can change that.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
So if he refuses to marry, he's not responsible! Brilliant!
By marrying her he is saying that he will take responsibility for children that are produced.

If a man is not married to a woman she has no reason to believe he will support it. He can CHOOSE to support it, but he should not be forced. The woman can choose to keep if she is able to support the child solely by herself.

Your notion that women are "sluttier" today is absurd, and one anecdote certainly doesn't make your case in the slightest. Where the hell do you think that the term "Jezebel" came from, anyway? the 60's?

With your headset, you'd fit right in with Pushtun tribesmen who'd stone their own daughters for sexual indiscretions, forgive the man because of the irresistible temptation of loose women.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0087.html
The percentage of white women married from 1960-65 who were virgins was 43; from 1980-85 it was 14.
Absurd. He took on that responsibility when he chose to have sex in the first place, and no amount of obfuscation can change that.
Funny. Replace He with She and you have the exact view of the Republicans who want to ban abortion.

EDIT: As the feminists said a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Time to put it to the test.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
So in other words you do not have one. And believe that you yourself should be a slave to women's reproductive choices.
Always coming back to the men are slaves to women's reproductive choices argument. Sorry, I'm fully aware that I'll never have the burden of being pregnant, going through childbirth and raising a child for ~18 years; nor do I mind that a small portion of my tax money goes to support the women that do have that burden.

There's lots of things that I'd like my tax money to not pay for; unfortunately taxpayers don't have a line item veto as far as how their taxes are to be used.

However, my idea of forcing you to have a sex change and implanting a fertilized egg in your tummy and having it grow to term was just so absolutely delicious I just couldn't resist.:p
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Always coming back to the men are slaves to women's reproductive choices argument. Sorry, I'm fully aware that I'll never have the burden of being pregnant, going through childbirth and raising a child for ~18 years;[b/] nor do I mind that a small portion of my tax money goes to support the women that do have that burden.


No woman is forced to be pregnant. Or to go through childbirth (hello abortion). Or to raise a child for 18 years.

Men, however can be FORCED to raise a child for 18 years by a woman. That is exactly the point I was making.

The only time women have that "burden" is if the choose it.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
No woman is forced to be pregnant. Or to go through childbirth (hello abortion). Or to raise a child for 18 years.

Men, however can be FORCED to raise a child for 18 years by a woman. That is exactly the point I was making.

The only time women have that "burden" is if the choose it.
And no man is forced to have sex with a woman. And if they use birth control they greatly reduce the chance of pregnancy. A woman choosing to have sex is not choosing to become pregnant, or did you miss that in health class?

Yes men can be forced to be financially responsible for a child they produce. However, it is a reality that men can elude the law enforcement and judicial systems to get out of child support. My wife is a probation officer and sees daily the problems created by men doing just that.

Perhaps your problem is not so much with women who become pregnant but with men abrogating their responsibilities. But I already know you'll deny that and once again blame the woman.

Is it because you secretly desire to be a woman? Go ahead, you can tell us. We promise it won't go any further than this thread.:p
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY